Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 16.9.2003, Annexure P.5, rejecting claim of the employees represented by the petitioner Union for counting workcharge service for the purpose of granting proficiency step up on completion of 8/18 years of service. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it is a Union of employees. The employees initially joined on work charge basis but their services were later regularised. The Third Pay Commission recommended proficiency step up, which recommendation was accepted and instructions dated 1.12.1988, Annexure P.2 were issued by the State of Punjab to the effect that one additional increment will be paid on completion of 8 and 18 years of service in the form of proficiency step up to all employees. For the said purpose, work and conduct of the employees will be assessed by the same procedure as applied to promotion and if the employee was found suitable, the increment will be given. For this purpose, entire service in time scale, Senior Scale and Selection scale shall be counted Vide letter dated 1.9.1989, Annexure P.3, it was clarified that the period of 8/18 years is to be reckoned from the date of appointment on regular basis and service rendered on ad hoc basis is not to be counted for the purpose. 3. The members of the petitioner - Union filed CWP No. 10621 of 2003 with a prayer for counting work charge service as regular service and vide order dated 15.7.2003, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide legal notice of the petitioner by speaking order. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.9.2003, Annexure P.5, legal notice of the employees was decided and prayer was declined on the basis of instructions dated 29.10.1991, Annexure P. 6 to the effect that work charge service could not be counted as regular service, in view of earlier instructions dated 1.9.1989, Annexure P. 3. 4. Contention raised in the petition is that the view taken by the department was against judgment of the Honble Supreme Court dated 31.10.2000 in 2008(8) SLT 203, State of Haryana and others v. Ravinder Kumar and others. 4. Contention raised in the petition is that the view taken by the department was against judgment of the Honble Supreme Court dated 31.10.2000 in 2008(8) SLT 203, State of Haryana and others v. Ravinder Kumar and others. Annexure P. 8, judgments of this Court dated 13.9.2000 in CWP No. 5738 of 1999, Kesar Singh v. State of Punjab and others., Annexure P.7, dated 19.4.2001 in CWP No. 5550 of 1998, Sardara Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and others., Annexure P. 9, dated 15.11.2002 in CWP No. 17315 of 2001, Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others., Annexure P. 10 and dated 27.7.2004 in CWP No. 6288 of 2003, Som Nath and others v. State of Punjab. and others, Annexure P.11. 5. In the reply filed, it has been stated that against judgment of this Court dated 25.6.2005 in CWP No. 15007 of 2003, Kuldip Singh and others v. State of Punjab. and others, SLP (Civil) No. 23439 of 2005 has been filed in the Honble Supreme Court and ngtice has been issued and, therefore, the matter may be adjourned. On 12.3.2007, following order was passed : "Learned counsel for the parties states that the Division Bench judgment of this Court Annexure P.11, on which reliance has been placed, is under challenge before Honble the Supreme Court in SLP and the matter is posted for hearing on 15.3.2007. To come up on 30.3.2007". Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a copy of order of the Honble Supreme Court dated 20.9.2007 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1018-1020 of 2001 State of Punjab and others v. Onkar Singh and others. The said matter was considered by the Honble Supreme Court against judgment of this Court, holding that work charge service was required to be counted for proficiency step up. Reference was made to earlier judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and another, (2000) 8 SCC 4 : [2000(5) SLR 223 (SC)]., taking the view that only regular substantive service of an employee could be Counted for proficiency step up and not ad hoc service. The said view was reiterated vide order dated 20.22001 in SLP (C) Nos. 5090 of 1999 and 13171 of 2000. The said view was reiterated vide order dated 20.22001 in SLP (C) Nos. 5090 of 1999 and 13171 of 2000. However, review petition was allowed on the basis of another order of the Honble Supreme Court and the matter was heard again. Further reference was made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in M.K. Shanmugam and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 2704 : [2000(4) SLR 418 (SC)]., holding that ad hoc service could not be counted for proficiency step up. Reference was also made to judgment of tile Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Lalita S. Rao and others, AIR 2001 SC 1792 : [2001(2) SLR 633 (SC)]., and it was held that the matter required reconsideration by this Court in the light of various decisions and the relevant rules and circulars including circulars dated 1.9.1989 and 29.10.1991 issued by the State Government. It was observed that the question whether Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab Through the Secretary PWD B&R Chandigarh and others, 1988 (2) PLR 223 : [1988(5) SLR 27 (Pb. & Hry.)]., striking down Rule 3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 11, which was followed by this Court in Banta Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others. CWP No. 18429 of 1996., decided on 6.2.1997, giving rise to an appeal to the Honble Supreme Court was good law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that work charge service ought to be counted for the purpose of proficiency step up and for this purpose. judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Haryana Veterinary (supra) was distinguishabic. The Honble Supreme Court itself distinguished the said judgment with regard to the case of work charge employees vide order dated 31.10.2000, Annexure P. 8 in Ravinder Kumar. It has been submitted that the matter was concluded by the order. of the Honble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar (supra) and the work charge service was required to be counted. 8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that in the order dated 20.9.2007, in Onkar Singh (supra), the whole issue has been reconsidered by the Honble Supreme Court and question whether work charge service could be counted. of the Honble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar (supra) and the work charge service was required to be counted. 8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that in the order dated 20.9.2007, in Onkar Singh (supra), the whole issue has been reconsidered by the Honble Supreme Court and question whether work charge service could be counted. has been gone into afresh in the light of later judgments in M.K. Shatnmugam and Lalita S. Rao (supra) and thus, order passed in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra) and had to be confined to the facts of that case. Circulars dated 1.9.1989, 29.10.1992 were not considered in the case of Ravinder Kumar (supra), as observed by Honble Supreme Court in Onkar Singh (supra). In Lalita S. Rao (supra), it was held that service prior to regularisation could not be counted towards seniority, in view of Constitution Bench judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officerss Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607 : [1990(2) SLR 769 (SC)]. Same view was taken in M. K. Shamnugam (supra). 9. We have gone into the same question in Ramesh Kumar Joshi v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, CWP No. 13233 of 2007., decided on 24.8.2007, wherein it was observed as under : "As far as claim for counting the ad hoc service for seniority is concerned, it is well settled that seniority is counted from the date of regular appointment and not, from the date of ad hoc appointment. Even if an appointment is ad hoc and continues uniterruptedly, such service can be counted only where appointment was against existing vacancy and appointment was subject to deficiency of procedural nature. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607, wherein it was observed : "44. To sum up, we hold that : (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. To sum up, we hold that : (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation. The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted." In State of West Bengal and others etc. v. Aghore Nath Dey and others, 1993 (3) SCC 371 : [1993(2) SLR 528 (SC)]., it was observed : "25. In our opinion, the conclusion (B) was added to cover a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the Rules. This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the `rules and the latter expression `till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules. We read conclusion (B), and it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularisation, the appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial appointment in such cases. Decision about the nature of the appointment, for determining whether it falls in this category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in the rules. Decision about the nature of the appointment, for determining whether it falls in this category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee Must continue in the post uniteri-uptedly till the regularisation of his service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment, subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest. In such cases also. If there be any delay in curing the defects on account of any fault of the appointee, the appointee would not get the fill benefit of the earlier period on account of his default, the benefit being confined only to the period for which he is not to blame. This category of cases is different from those covered by the corollary in conclusion (A) which relates to appointment only on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement and not according to rules. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the present cases can fall within the ambit of conclusion (B), even though they are squarely covered by the corollary in conclusion (A)." In view of above legal position, claim for regularization of services of the petitioner and for counting of ad hoc service for seniority is not legally admissible. We, however, do not express any opinion on the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis Amrik Singh whose case has been referred to in the petition but who is not a party." 10 In Kesar Chand (Supra), Full Bench of this Court was not concerned about issue of seniority but was only concerned about the issue of counting ad hoc service for pension. The said judgment is, thus, distinguishable. 11. Circulars dated 1.9.1989 and 29.10.1991 clearly provide for counting only regular service for the purpose of proficiency step up. 12. The said judgment is, thus, distinguishable. 11. Circulars dated 1.9.1989 and 29.10.1991 clearly provide for counting only regular service for the purpose of proficiency step up. 12. No distinction has been shown to us in ad hoc service or work charge service for the purpose of counting the same as regular service. Neither ad hoc nor work charge is a regular service in cadre. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that view taken in Haryana Veterinary (supra) has also been followed in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others, AIR 2001 SC 2691: [2001(3) SLR 256 (SC)]. and State of Punjab v Ishar Singh, AIR 2002 SC 2422 : [2002(2) SLR 289 (SC)]. Concept of work charge service has also been considered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Purushottam and others, AIR 1996 SC 2228 :[1996(4) SLR 558 (SC)]. wherein, after referring to earlier judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1980 SC 115 : [1979(2) SLR 375 (SC)]., it has been held that work charge establishment is an establishment of which expenses including wages and allowances of the staff are chargeable to work. Employees are temporary employees for execution of specified work. Their services come to an end on completion of the work and their services cannot be taken into account for seniority and regular establishment. In State of Punjab and others, v. Jit Singh, AIR 1997 SC 29 : [1996(4) SLR 727 (SC)], it was observed that work charge employee was not a government servant. In State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei, AIR 1996 SC 2124 : [1996(4) SLR 13 (SC)]., it was held that `die in harness scheme could not be applied to work charge employee. In State of Gujarat and another v. Karshanbhai K. Rabari and others, 2006 (6) SCC 21 : [2006(5) SLR 280 (SC)]., it was held that work charge employees could not be treated at par with regular employees. 13. In view of above reasons, we are of the view that work charge service could not be counted as regular service for the purpose of proficiency step up. 14. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.